Although the effect of biases and stereotype threat on women in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields is well documented, less is known about how men and women attribute an undergraduate woman’s anxieties in a STEM class. We examined how undergraduate men and women perceive a woman facing emotional struggles in a physics class (Study 1, N = 309; Study 2, N = 271) and having her contributions ignored in an environmental science class (Study 3, N = 344) in three studies and an internal meta-analysis. Across the studies and meta-analysis, we found gender differences in reactions to the stories. Men were less likely than women to attribute the student’s anxiety to bias-related factors, such as awareness of stereotypes or instructor treatment, and more likely than women to attribute the anxiety to the student’s lack of preparation. Women were more likely to view the narratives as reflecting real-life experiences of women in STEM. The results indicate a lack of awareness, on the part of undergraduate men, of the difficulties faced by women in STEM classes. Based on the current findings, educators and researchers should consider the role that gender plays in how women’s emotional responses in STEM contexts are interpreted. Additional online materials for this article are available on PWQ’s website at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/suppl/10.1177/0361684318754528
BarrettL. F.Bliss-MoreauE. (2009). She’s emotional. He’s having a bad day: Attributional explanations for emotion stereotypes. Emotion, 9, 649–658. doi:10.1037/a0016821
2.
BeasleyM. A.FischerM. J. (2012). Why they leave: The impact of stereotype threat on the attrition of women and minorities from science, math and engineering majors. Social Psychology of Education, 15, 427–448. doi:10.1007/s11218-012-9185-3
CadinuM.MaassA.RosabiancaA.KiesnerJ. (2005). Why do women underperform under stereotype threat? Evidence for the role of negative thinking. Psychological Science, 16, 572–578. doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.01577.x
5.
CarliL. L.AlawaL.LeeY.ZhaoB.KimE. (2016). Stereotypes about gender and science: Women ≠ scientists. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40, 244–260. doi:10.1177/0361684315622645
6.
CarnesM.DevineP. G.IsaacC.ManwellL. B.FordC. E.Byars-WinstonA.SheridanJ. T. (2012). Promoting institutional change through bias literacy. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 5, 63–77. doi:10.1037/a0028128
7.
CaseK. A. (2007). Raising male privilege awareness and reducing sexism: An evaluation of diversity courses. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 426–435. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2007. 00391.x
8.
CohenG. L.GarciaJ. (2008). Identity, belonging, and achievement: A model, interventions, implications. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17, 365–369. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00607.x
9.
DeauxK.EmswillerT. (1974). Explanations of successful performance on sex-linked tasks: What is skill for the male is luck for the female. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 80–85. doi:10.1037/h0035733
10.
DeauxK.WhiteL.FarrisE. (1975). Skill versus luck: Field and laboratory studies of male and female preferences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 629–636. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.32.4.629
11.
ErbT. O.SmithW. S. (1984). Validation of the attitude toward women in science scale for early adolescents. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21, 391–397.
12.
EtaughC.BrownB. (1975). Perceiving the causes of success and failure of male and female performers. Developmental Psychology, 11, 103. doi:10.1037/h0076132
13.
FabesR. A.MartinC. L. (1991). Gender and age stereotypes of emotionality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 532–540. doi:10.1177/0146167291175008
14.
FeatherN. T.SimonJ. G. (1975). Reactions to male and female success and failure in sex-linked occupations: Impressions of personality, causal attributions, and perceived likelihood of different consequences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 20–31. doi:10.1037/h0076240
15.
GohJ. X.HallJ. A.RosenthalR. (2016). Mini meta-analysis of your own studies: Some arguments on why and a primer on how. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10, 535–549. doi:/10.1111/spc3.12267
16.
GreenM. C.BrockT. C. (2000). The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 701–721. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.701
17.
HandleyI. M.BrownE. R.Moss-RacusinC. A.SmithJ. L. (2015). Quality of evidence revealing subtle gender biases in science is in the eye of the beholder. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112, 13201–13206. doi:10.1073/pnas.1510649112
18.
HessU.SenécalS.KirouacG.HerreraP.PhilippotP.KleckR. E. (2000). Emotional expressivity in men and women: Stereotypes and self-perceptions. Cognition and Emotion, 14, 609–642. doi:10.1080/02699930050117648
19.
HewstoneM. (1990). The “ultimate attribution error”? A review of the literature on intergroup causal attribution. European Journal of Social Psychology, 205, 311–33. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420200404/
20.
HillC.CorbettC.St. RoseA. (2010). Why so few? Women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, DC: American Association of University of Women.
21.
HydeJ. S.LindbergS. M.LinnM. C.EllisA. B.WilliamsC. C. (2008). Gender similarities characterize math performance. Science, 321, 494–495. doi:10.1126/science.1160364
22.
KaufmanG.LibbyL. K. (2012). Changing beliefs and behavior through experience-taking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 1–19. doi:10.1037/a0027525
23.
KaufmanG.FreedmanG.FitzgeraldK.GreenM. C.FlanaganM. (2018). Using narratives to raise awareness of stereotype threat. Manuscript in preparation.
24.
KellyJ. R.Hutson-ComeauxS. (2000). The appropriateness of emotional expression in women and men: The double-bind of emotion. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 15, 515–528. Retrieved fromhttps://search.proquest.com/docview/1292269247?accountid=10422
25.
LaCosseJ.SekaquaptewaD.BennettJ. (2016). STEM stereotypic attribution bias among women in an unwelcoming science setting. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40, 378–397. doi:10.1177/0361684316630965
26.
LuzzoD. A.McWhirterE. H. (2001). Sex and ethnic differences in the perception of educational and career-related barriers and levels of coping efficacy. Journal of Counseling and Development, 79, 61–67. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.2001.tb01944.x
27.
MargolisJ.FisherA. (2002). Unlocking the clubhouse: Women in computing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
28.
Moss-RacusinC. A.DovidioJ. F.BrescollV. L.GrahamM. J.HandelsmanJ. (2012). Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109, 16474–16479. doi:10.1073/pnas.1211286109
National Research Council. (2007). Beyond bias and barriers: Fulfilling the potential of women in academic science and engineering. Washington, DC. Retrieved fromhttp://www.nap.edu/catalog/11741.html
31.
National Science Foundation. (2017). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 2017. Arlington, VA. Retrieved fromwww.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/
32.
NguyenH.-H. D.RyanA. M. (2008). Does stereotype threat affect test performance of minorities and women? A meta-analysis of experimental evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1314–1334. doi:10.1037/a0012702
33.
NosekB. A.BanajiM. R.GreenwaldA. G. (2002). Math = male, me = female, therefore math ≠ me. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 44–59. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.83.1.44
34.
OsborneJ. W. (2001). Testing stereotype threat: Does anxiety explain race and sex differences in achievement?Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 291–310. doi:10.1006/ceps.2000.1052
35.
OwenS. V.ToepperweinM. A.PruskiL. A.BlalockC. L.LiuY.MarshallC. E.LichtensteinM. J. (2007). Psychometric reevaluation of the Women in Science Scale (WiSS). Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 1461–1478. doi:10.1002/tea.20187
36.
PettigrewT. F. (1979). The ultimate attribution error: Extending Allport’s cognitive analysis of prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5, 461–476. doi:10.1177/014616727900500407
37.
PietriE. S.Moss-RacusinC. A.DovidioJ. F.GuhaD.RoussosG.BrescollV. L.HandelsmanJ. (2017). Using video to increase gender bias literacy toward women in science. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 41, 175–196. doi:10.1177/0361684316674721
38.
ReubenE.SapienzaP.ZingalesL.GreenwaldA. G. (2014). How stereotypes impair women’s careers in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111, 4403–4408. doi:10.1073/pnas.1314788111
39.
RossL. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. In BerkowitzL. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (pp. 173–220). New York, NY: Academic Press.
40.
SchmaderT.JohnsM.ForbesC. (2008). An integrated process model of stereotype threat effects on performance. Psychological Review, 115, 336–356. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.115.2.336
41.
SekaquaptewaD.EspinozaP.ThompsonM.VargasP.von HippelW. (2003). Stereotypic explanatory bias: Implicit stereotyping as a predictor of discrimination. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 75–82. doi:10.1016/S0022-1031(02)00512-7
ShapiroJ. R.WilliamsA. M. (2012). The role of stereotype threats in undermining girls’ and women’s performance and interest in STEM fields. Sex Roles, 66, 175–183. doi:10.1007/s11199-011-0051-0
44.
SpencerS. J.SteeleC. M.QuinnD. M. (1999). Stereotype threat and women’s math performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 4–28. doi:10.1006/jesp.1998.1373
45.
StakeJ. E. (2003). Understanding male bias against girls and women in science. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 667–682. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2003.tb01918.x
46.
SteeleC. M.AronsonJ. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 797–811. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.69.5.797
47.
SteeleC. M.SpencerS. J.AronsonJ. (2002). Contending with group image: The psychology of stereotype and social identity threat. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 34, 379–440. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(02)80009-0
48.
SteinpreisR. E.AndersK. A.RitzkeD. (1999). The impact of gender on the review of the curricula vitae of job applicants and tenure candidates: A national empirical study. Sex Roles, 41, 509–528. doi:10.1023/A:1018839203698
49.
SwimJ. K.HyersL. L.CohenL. L.FergusonM. J. (2001). Everyday sexism: Evidence for its incidence, nature, and psychological impact from three daily diary studies. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 31–53. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00200
50.
TaylorL.NewmanS.MangisC.SwianderM.GaribaldiC.IsmaelA.…GittesM. (1993). Gender and attribution: A reversal of bias?The Journal of Social Psychology, 133, 575–577. doi:10.1080/00224545.1993.9712183
51.
ThompsonA. E.VoyerD. (2014). Sex differences in the ability to recognise non-verbal displays of emotion: A meta-analysis. Cognition and Emotion, 28, 1164–1195. doi:10.1080/02699931.2013.875889
52.
TimmersM.FischerA.MansteadA. (2003). Ability versus vulnerability: Beliefs about men’s and women’s emotional behaviour. Cognition and Emotion, 17, 41–63. doi:10.1080/02699930302277
53.
ViechtbauerW. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36, 1–48. doi:10.18637/jss.v036.i03
54.
WaltonG. M.CohenG. L. (2007). A question of belonging: Race, social fit, and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 82–96. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.82
55.
WasburnM. H.MillerS. G. (2006). Still a chilly climate for women students in technology: A case study. In RosserV. S.FoxM. F. (Eds.), Women, Gender and Technology (pp. 60–79). Champaign: University of Illinois Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
